網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

tor, Joint Resources. However, if the JCS Chairman were given substantial responsibilities for providing personnel management of military officers in joint assignments (as proposed in Option 2J of Chapter 4), it would be necessary to retain, and possibly expand, the J-1 office. 2. PROBLEM AREA #2–INADEQUATE SUPERVISION AND COORDINA

TION OF OSD OFFICES The thrusts of solutions to this problem are to reduce the Secretary of Defense's span of control by streamlining OSD, to improve the control of the Defense Agencies, and to create a coordination office or under secretary to help manage OSD. A total of seven options are presented in these three categories.

a. Create additional under or deputy secretaries to serve as managers/coordinators and group assistant secretaries and lesser officials under them. o Option 2A -create two additional under secretaries for evalua

tion and readiness, sustainability, and support. In addition to the Under Secretaries for Policy and Research and Engineering, which currently exist, two other under secretary positions would be created for evaluation who would have responsibility for evaluation, including testing, and control type activities. Readiness, sustainability, and support who would have responsibility for manpower, reserve affairs, health affairs, installations, and logistics.

[graphic][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

Chart 3–7 presents one possible organizational arrangement with four under secretaries of defense. Under this arrangement, the Secretary of Defense's span of control would be reduced from 24 to 10 OSD and Defense Agency officials. In addition to the four under secretaries, only six other OSD officials would report directly to the Secretary of Defense: General Counsel, Assistant Secretary (Legislative Affairs), Assistant Secretary (Public Affairs), the DoD Inspector General, Assistant Secretary (Acquisition), and Assistant Secretary (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence). The major changes reflected in this chart are: o the Defense Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency

would report to the Under Secretary (Policy) instead of the

Secretary of Defense; o the Defense Advisor, U.S. Mission to NATO, would report to

the Assistant Secretary (International Security Policy) instead

of the Secretary of Defense; o the Assistant Secretary (International Security Affairs), Assist

ant Secretary (International Security Policy), and Director, Net Assessment would report solely to the Under Secretary (Policy) instead of the current arrangement which also provides a link

with the Secretary of Defense; o the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization would report to

the Under Secretary (Research and Engineering) instead of the

Secretary of Defense; o the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller), Director, Program Anal

ysis and Evaluation, and the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation would report to the Under Secretary (Evaluation) instead of the Secretary of Defense; the DoD Inspector General could also report to the Under Secretary (Evaluation) if it were determined that he would retain sufficient independence in such an organizational arrangement; under this option, this of

ficial would continue to report to the Secretary of Defense; o the Assistant to the Secretary (Intelligence Oversight) would

report to the DoD Inspector General instead of the Secretary of

Defense; o the Assistant Secretary (Force Management and Personnel),

Assistant Secretary Reserve Affairs), Assistant Secretary (Health Affairs), and Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences would report to the Under Secretary (Readiness, Sustainability, and Support) instead of the Secretary of

Defense; o the installations and logistics functions would be transferred

from the Assistant Secretary (Acquisition and Logistics) to the Assistant Secretary (Installations and Logistics) who would report to the Under Secretary (Readiness, Sustainability, and

Support); o the Assistant Secretary (Acquisition and Logistics) would be re

titled Assistant Secretary (Acquisition); and o the Director, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

would report to the Assistant Secretary (Acquisition) instead of

the Secretary of Defense. o Option 2B-create three mission-oriented under secretaries for

nuclear deterrence, NATO defense, and regional defense and force projection and an under secretary for readiness, sustain

ability, and support. This option has been discussed in detail earlier in this chapter under Option 1B. It is repeated here primarily in recognition of its contribution to solving the problem of inadequate supervision and coordination of OSD offices as well as improving mission integration. In addition to these four new under secretary positions, the current Under Secretary (Research and Engineering) would be retained. Under this option, the Secretary of Defense's span of control would be reduced from 24 to 13 OSD and Defense Agency officials. o Option 2C —create three deputy secretaries for military oper

ations, resource management, and evaluation. This proposal, put forward by the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel, envisioned deputy secretaries for:

Military operations who would have responsibility for military operations, unified commands, operational requirements, intelligence, telecommunications, international security affairs, and the Defense Communications Agency.

Management of resources who would have responsibility for the Military Departments, research and advanced technology, engineering development, installations and procurement, manpower and reserve affairs, health and environmental affairs, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Evaluation who would have responsibility for evaluation and control-type activities, including comptroller, program analysis and evaluation, test and evaluation, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency

[blocks in formation]
« 上一頁繼續 »